Critical Remarks on Alf Ross’s Probabilistic Concept of Validity

  • Katarzyna Eliasz
  • Wojciech Załuski
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 122)


The concept of legal validity is regarded within the dominant—legal-positivistic—account of law as a nongradable concept: a legal rule is either valid or nonvalid. However, this account of validity is criticized by some scholars as being too strict and rigid. Apparently, an attractive alternative might be Alf Ross’s probabilistic account of validity. Ross assumed that the stronger the predictions of judicial behavior a given rule generates, the greater the probability of their being valid. However, this account of legal validity is by no means uncontroversial. In this paper, four objections to it are formulated: the objection of the apparent gradability, the objection of the problematic ascertainability, the objection of the normative insignificance of probabilistic information, and the objection of neglecting the normativity of legal rules. These objections are treated in the paper as providing strong reasons for rejecting Ross’s claim that predictions of judicial behavior formulated on the basis of rules are conceptually linked to their validity (i.e., they define their meaning); it is argued that they are merely a way of testing empirical hypotheses concerning the application (effectiveness) of legal rules.


Validity Probability Prediction Normative ideology Alf Ross H.L.A. Hart Judicial decision making Sources of law 


  1. Aarnio, Aulis. 2011. Essays on the Doctrinal Study of Law. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grabowski, Andrzej. 2014. Juristic Concept of the Validity of Statutory Law: A Critique of Contemporary Legal Nonpositivism. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Hart, H.L.A. 1959. Scandinavian Realism. Cambridge Law Journal 17 (2): 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Millard, Eric. 2013. Alf Ross and the Realist Conceptions of Legislation. In The Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. Pierre Brunet, Eric Millard, and Patricia Mindus, 77–89. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Ross, Alf. 1946. Towards a Realistic Jurisprudence, a Criticism of Dualism in Law. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1958. On Law and Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1962. The Concept of Law by H.L.A. Hart. Yale Law Journal 71 (6): 1185–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1998. Validity and the Conflict between Legal Positivism and Natural Law. In Normativity and Norms. Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes, ed. Stanley Paulson and Bonnie Litschewski Paulson, 147–163. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarzyna Eliasz
    • 1
  • Wojciech Załuski
    • 1
  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations